BACKGROUND 

In contrast to businesses providing shareholder value through revenue generation and profit sharing, the public sector operates from a monetary public entrustment to provide public goods and services for the benefit of society, referred to as the generation of public value. The public investments made to generate public goods obligate the public sector to understand the vision and goals of the served community. Further, the public sector must be efficient, effective, and resilient in managing its resources to create public value.   

Transportation agencies build public value through their investments in transportation networks and services for system users by providing safe and efficient access to destinations. Ideally, this public value would reinforce sustained public confidence in transportation agencies to achieve societal goals through investments in projects and services. However, quantifying and communicating public value is a challenge to transportation agencies at all levels of government. Research is needed to assist transportation agencies in identifying and communicating the public value generated for communities.  

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to develop a guide that (1) defines public value for transportation agencies; (2) identifies methods for assessing, measuring, and communicating the public value generated by transportation; and (3) showcases the role public value creation plays in achieving societal goals. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks. 

TASKS 

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The NCHRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. 

The sequencing of tasks to achieve the project objective and associated deliverables, such as technical memoranda or summary reports, shall be structured in the same cadence as quarterly progress report (QPR) submissions so that technical content and a QPR can be reviewed simultaneously. The overall research plan must be organized into three phases. The research team shall deliver an interim report and updated research plan at the end of Phases I and II. One month shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval of each interim report. NCHRP approval is required to advance to the next phase. An in-person interim meeting shall follow Phase I, and a virtual interim meeting shall follow Phase II. 

For proposal consideration, a clear and concise engagement strategy to achieve the project objective shall be developed and presented in the proposal under the header “Engagement Strategy.” Engagement is envisioned for two purposes:

1. Identify opportunities throughout the research plan to gain input or highlight research results with stakeholders, including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Performance-Based Management, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Standing Committee on Strategic Management – AJE10, and the TRB Standing Committee on Performance Management – AJE20.
   
   
2. Hold two virtual workshops at the end of Phase II to vet the research outcomes with (1) a range of transportation agencies to determine whether the research outcomes meet practitioners' needs and (2) individuals on existing transportation advisory boards to state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, and so forth to determine whether the research outcomes resonate or help demonstrate public value (see Special Note O).
   

Note: The engagement strategy will be considered under the second evaluation criterion described in Special Note F, and NCHRP discourages survey questionnaires for this project.

PHASE I

The research team should begin with a scan of practice and a literature review. Both items should include non-transportation agencies with experience demonstrating their public value that may be relevant to transportation. Phase I shall not exceed 6 months and includes the following task elements:

1. Identify examples of public agencies demonstrating proficiency with public value relevant to transportation. Performance measures used by public agencies and linkages to policy decision-making should be emphasized.
   
   
2. Review, synthesize, and document transportation agency efforts with public value. This process may include (1) conducting a meta-analysis of post-COVID-19 public surveys already conducted by public agencies that capture qualitative information/data on public value or attitudes and (2) determining whether existing performance management frameworks from transportation agencies have measures, metrics, data collection, or analyses that help inform public value. Any gaps in existing performance management frameworks shall be documented to help determine what should be addressed in Phase II.
   
   
3. Define public value for transportation agencies.
   
   
4. Explain how public value is helping to achieve societal goals or community-centered transportation outcomes and meet public expectations. The research team may consider the Faulkner and Kaufman framework, societal goals, and foundational factors identified in Critical Issues in Transportation for 2024 and Beyond or the vision and goals presented in the NCHRP Research Results Digest 404: Collective and Individual Actions to Envision and Realize the Next Era of America’s Transportation Infrastructure: Phase 1 (see Special Note P).  

Note: Any notable practices or literature demonstrating equity and resilience linkages to public value are of special interest.

PHASE II

The research team shall develop methods that can be implemented to assess, measure, and communicate public value creation by transportation agencies. Hypothetical case examples shall be created to guide transportation practitioners and decision-makers on how to execute these methods. These case examples should be thematic and represent anonymized, real-world experiences of transportation agencies. Themes for the case examples should be proposed in the updated Phase II Research Plan but should address different types of transportation system users to increase understanding of the public value generated from multimodal investments.

Phase II shall not exceed 12 months, with 3 months devoted to developing methods and case examples. The final 3 months shall be devoted to holding the virtual workshops and preparing the Phase II Interim Report and updated Phase III Research Plan, which should include an annotated outline of the draft guide.

PHASE III

Phase III shall be reserved for the preparation of the final deliverables. The methods and case examples developed in Phase II shall be assembled into a guide. For the proposal, the research team should consider at least the following as final deliverables:

• A practitioner’s guide, which may include a simplified tool as a supplemental deliverable, no later than 4 months before contract expiration;
  
  
• A conduct of research report; 
  
  
• An executive brief comprising a maximum of 10 pages with infographics to quickly communicate the overall research outcomes to decision-makers;
  
  
• A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes that summarizes the project and distinctly illustrates for a broader audience how the research can be applied; and
  
  
• An implementation plan (see Special Note K).
  

The final deliverables shall be reconsidered in the updated Phase III Research Plan. 

Note: The preparation of software or a playbook is discouraged.

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

A. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2024. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow.

B. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions.

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Contractors. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for contract negotiations.

D. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/7104. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

E. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

F. Proposals are evaluated by the NCHRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a contract. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before contract negotiations continue. 

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.

G. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB's Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB's policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, "Use of Copyrighted Material," in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.

H. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible. See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Contractors Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

I. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a "federally" Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.

J. NCHRP wishes to award this contract for a fixed price of $300,000; this amount will not be subject to any adjustment by reason of the contractor's cost experience in the performance of the contract.

K. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.

The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committee members, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: Moving Research into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf

L. If the team proposes a Principal Investigator who is not an employee of the Prime Contractor, or if the Prime Contractor is proposed to conduct less than 50% of the total effort (by time or budget), then section five of the proposal should include: (1) a justification of why this approach is appropriate, and (2) a description of how the Prime Contractor will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their Subcontractors throughout the project.

M. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.

N. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected. 

O. If the research approach includes human subjects testing, proposers should be aware that contracts will be subject to approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This review may be conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s IRB, but NASEM will delegate the review to the contracting agency’s IRB if that agency’s process meets all federal requirements for the protection of human subjects.

If an organization cannot use or partner with an external IRB, or if TRB staff believe the project merits extra attention, then TRB staff may ask NASEM IRB to conduct a review following its normal procedures. The NASEM IRB can be contacted by email at IRB@NAS.EDU.

P. Proposers are expected to build on existing research and minimize duplication of effort. At a minimum, the following publications should be reviewed during the preparation of the proposal:

• Customer Experience and Public Value Creation Technical Report (2023R06EN), PIARC, 2023. https://www.piarc.org/en/order-library/40773-en-Customer%20Experience%20and%20Public%20Value%20Creation%20%E2%80%93%20Technical%20Report
• Faulkner, Nicholas and Kaufman, Stefan. Avoiding Theoretical Stagnation: A System Review and Framework for Measuring Public Value, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 2017.
• Martin Mayer. Structuring Public-Private Partnerships for public value:  Analysis of Two Transportation Infrastructure Case Studies, Public Works Management & Policy, 2022 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin-Mayer-9/publication/358185392_Structuring_Public-Private_Partnerships_for_Public_Value_Analysis_of_Two_Transportation_Infrastructure_Case_Studies/links/62f8823ec6f6732999cbdaca/Structuring-Public-Private-Partnerships-for-Public-Value-Analysis-of-Two-Transportation-Infrastructure-Case-Studies.pdf?origin=publication_detail
• Moore, Michael. Creating Public Value, Strategic Management in Government. Harvard University Press, 1995.
• Mulgan, Breckon, Tarrega, Bakhski, Davies, Khan and Finnis. Public Value: How can it be measured, managed and grown? Nesta, 2019 https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Public_Value_WEB.pdf 
• Steudle, K., J. Kalinski, E. Enarson-Hering, L. Pickett, B. Bream, S. Martinovich, D. Miller, and S. Lockwood. 2023. NCHRP RRD 404: Collective and Individual Actions to Envision and Realize the Next Era of America's Transportation Infrastructure: Phase 1. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/27263.
• Transportation Research Board Executive Committee. 2024. Critical Issues in Transportation for 2024 and Beyond. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/27432.